Like, a man can be inspired to do or write something about God, but what that man does or writes isn't necessarily given an "OK" by the Almighty? I guess maybe I should ask also what the Orthodoxy mean by "God-inspired"?

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

Men still wrote the Bible especially those who saw the teachings and preachings of the Son of God. If being a Disciple of Jesus Christ isn't enough of an "God Endorsement" or enough of an "Inspiration" I have no idea what would be.

Neither God nor Christ told any Bible author what to say and what not to say.

If being a Disciple of Jesus Christ isn't enough of an "God Endorsement" or enough of an "Inspiration" I have no idea what would be.

I understand that, but it's the Old Testement that makes me ask the question. For example, why is it written that God gave the Commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill", but then turn around and tell Moses that it's okay to stone the homosexuals and the adulterers?

Quote

Neither God nor Christ told any Bible author what to say and what not to say.

Then what should we believe comes from God and what doesn't?

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

I understand that, but it's the Old Testement that makes me ask the question. For example, why is it written that God gave the Commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill", but then turn around and tell Moses that it's okay to stone the homosexuals and the adulterers?

God knew that his people, once they participated in Canaanite activities, would eventually lose the nerve to kill and stone. Christ made this clear when he told those to "he who is without sin cast the first stone" as an adulteress was about to be stoned.

I understand that, but it's the Old Testement that makes me ask the question. For example, why is it written that God gave the Commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill", but then turn around and tell Moses that it's okay to stone the homosexuals and the adulterers?

I don't want to get into Old Testament law, however the commandment, I believe, reads properly as "Thou shalt not murder".

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

God knew that his people, once they participated in Canaanite activities, would eventually lose the nerve to kill and stone. Christ made this clear when he told those to "he who is without sin cast the first stone" as an adulteress was about to be stoned.

Eh...you sorta lost me, LOL!

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

^ The Canaanites during Old Testament Times practiced child sacrifice, homosexuality, adultery and a whole lot of stuff not consistent with the Ten Commandments.

The children of Israel emulated the Canaanites. Read the numerous references to the righteous Kings of Israel taking down altars dedicated to idol worship and erected by the unrighteous Kings of Israel.

SolEX01, why would God work to keep his People from cavorting like the Caananites, but then seem to change his mind with the adulteress in the NT? I understand we should educate ourselves about a person and their decisions before we judge them, but it also seemed the Law was black and white about adultery, or was it a mistranslation?

« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 01:04:25 AM by Myrrh23 »

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

King David and Bethsheba weren't punished for their adultery according to the Levitical requirements, either. And King David basically "got away" with murdering Bethsheba's husband. There were reprecussions, of course, but not in accordance with the strict requirements of the Levitical Law. Strictly speaking, both King David and Bethsheba should have been executed; instead they produced a child who was to be an ancestor of Christ; Solomon. Personally, I have my doubts that the law was as strictly imposed as we imagine. Things in real life are never quite as black and white as they appear on paper. Perhaps the evidence that the Jews themselves couldn't or didn't adhere absolutely to the law is in that, according to scripture, they were frequently castigated by God in some way. By New Testament times the Jews had no recourse to carry out the death penality, anyway; that "priviledge" had been removed by Rome. I also have some dim recollection of reading somewhere that the woman caught in adutery would not have received the full impact of the law, because the man she commited adultery with was not presented to be judged with her. Jesus could recognise injustice when He saw it. It would appear that there was no case to answer.

edited for clarity

« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 01:49:37 AM by Riddikulus »

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

SolEX01, why would God work to keep his People from cavorting like the Caananites, but then seem to change his mind with the adulteress in the NT? I understand we should educate ourselves about a person and their decisions before we judge them, but it also seemed the Law was black and white about adultery, or was it a mistranslation?

Myrrh23 - the children of Israel, not the Canaanites, received the Old Testament Covenants directly from God.

In the New Testament, the Gentiles receive the opportunity to become children of Israel in that Christ fulfilled the entire Old Testament. Adultery and the other sins listed in the Old Testament still result in spiritual death except that one has the opportunity to repent and be made clean once again.

King David and Bethsheba weren't punished for their adultery according to the Levitical requirements, either. And King David basically "got away" with murdering Bethsheba's husband. There were reprecussions, of course, but not in accordance with the strict requirements of the Levitical Law. Strictly speaking, both King David and Bethsheba should have been executed; instead they produced a child who was to be an ancestor of Christ; Solomon. Personally, I have my doubts that the law was as strictly imposed as we imagine. Things in real life are never quite as black and white as they appear on paper. Perhaps the evidence that the Jews themselves couldn't or didn't adhere absolutely to the law is in that, according to scripture, they were frequently castigated by God in some way. By New Testament times the Jews had no recourse to carry out the death penality, anyway; that "priviledge" had been removed by Rome. I also have some dim recollection of reading somewhere that the woman caught in adutery would not have received the full impact of the law, because the man she commited adultery with was not presented to be judged with her. Jesus could recognise injustice when He saw it. It would appear that there was no case to answer.

I agree.. I guess this is one way that Jesus upturned the Jewish society then, by teaching that Love and not the Law was the supreme basis for morality..

Logged

""Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.""— Iroh- Avatar:The Last Airbender

I agree.. I guess this is one way that Jesus upturned the Jewish society then, by teaching that Love and not the Law was the supreme basis for morality..

Yes, if Jewish society had fallen into some kind of "old boy's club" rules regarding the law - in that the man wasn't brought along for judgement, while the woman was, Jesus certainly showed His disapproval to that kind of misogynistic behaviour. One can imagine how that didn't help His popularity with the leaders.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

The thought just came to me that the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus NOT out of genuine concern for upholding the Law of Moses but because they sought a pretext by which they could trap Jesus in His words and have Him discredited or destroyed.

AFAIK, we do not "believe in the Bible" - we believe only in God. Who God is, and what did/does He do for us, is shown most explicitly in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Bible, being a rather small part of the Holy Tradition, along with many other parts of the Holy Tradition, helps us appreciate this Person because it contains prophesies about Him and descriptions of His life and teaching. Again, AFAIK (and I may be wrong), that's the ONLY value of the book we call the Bible. It was not created by men who worked like puppets or robots, being directed by the Holy Spirit like a pilot directs a plane that he pilots. They were free to write everything that was on their mind; and that mind was absolutely human, with all the known human limitations, prejudices, misconceptions, etc. The reason we say that Scripture is "theopneistos" (God-breathed) is simply that God took care that the Bible contains some essential truths of our faith.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Reading this passage of St. Paul, which spoke only of the Jewish (OT) Scriptures, since his own writings had not yet been entered into the Canon of the New Testament, I would venture to say that the Apostles had a view of biblical inspiration and the importance of Scripture that was quite a bit stronger than I read Heorhij saying--then again, I may have misread the thought Heorhij is really trying to express.

Where we differ with Protestants is that we have no doctrine of sola scriptura for which to use St. Paul's word to Timothy as a proof text. We believe the Scriptures to be inspired by God just as Protestants do, which gives the Scriptures great authority for us just as much as for Protestants. But we also recognize the wisdom of the Fathers to be inspired by God, and we recognize our liturgical worship and the dogmatic proclamations of the Ecumenical Councils to be inspired by God, with all the ramifications St. Paul believed this inspiration to bear upon our doctrine and instruction in righteousness. Protestants reject this sacred Tradition as a guide for Christian instruction, so they have to place much greater weight on the words of Scripture itself; they have to image the Scriptures as a totally self-contained, self-authenticating, self-interpreting authority. As such, Protestants need a doctrine of biblical innerancy, wherein the very text of the Scriptures is totally free of any error in its original manuscripts.

The thought just came to me that the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus NOT out of genuine concern for upholding the Law of Moses but because they sought a pretext by which they could trap Jesus in His words and have Him discredited or destroyed.

Yes, that's a point, too. Either way, that they didn't also bring the guilty man to face Christ throws suspicion on their "concern" for moral justice.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

So...then what do Protestants mean when they claim that the Bible is God-inspired and totally correct? Where did the idea that men inspired by the Holy Spirit while writing the Bible come from?

Can't say for all Protestants, but some Evangelical Protestants whom I know or whose writings I read believe that everything in the Bible is factually true, because the Holy Spirit literally moved the hand and the pen of those who wrote the Scriptures. Therefore, if the Bible says that God created one "first" human from the dust of the earth, then it is factually true and the theory of biological evolution be damned. The Orthodox Church (as expressed by Her hierarchs, particularly Bishop Kallistos Ware), has a different take on this: "The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than literally" (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P13.HTM).

Do the Orthodox believe all parts of the Bible are God-inspired, but not necessarily God-endorsed?

The terminology is obscure, but it is an interesting question.

(1) Was Paul inspired when he said that the time was short (I Cor. 7.29)? For he was surely wrong (on the naive reading) about the immediacy of the Lord's return.(2) Was Paul inspired when he said that he had no command from the Lord and so offered his judgment instead (I Cor. 7.25) about unmarried young ladies? For he explicitly denied what we commonly imagine the vital portion of his authority--commandment from the Lord.(3) Did Jude (14-15) cite I Enoch 1.9 to the effect that Enoch proved inspired or was Jude inspired and this verse handy? For I Enoch is generally regarded as uninspired.(4) If I read and reflect on the Apostolic Fathers, I note that a good deal is said without NT (or OT) citation. What were they doing in those early days without "inscripturated" Bibles? For they had no inspired Scriptures (that we know of) at first.(5) In particular, consider this passage from Hermas:

"You do not know," he says, "how to fast unto the Lord: this useless fasting which you observe to HIm is of no value." "Why, sir," I answered, "do you say this?" "I say to you," he continued, "that the fasting which you think you observe is not a fasting. But I will teach you what is a full and acceptable fasting to the Lord. Listen," he continued: "God does not desire such an empty fasting? For fasting to God in this way you will do nothing for a righteous life; but offer to God a fasting of the following kind: Do no evil in your life, and serve the Lord with a pure heart: keep His commandments, walking in His precepts, and let no evil desire arise in your heart; and believe in God. If you do these things, and fear Him, and abstain from every evil thing, you will live unto God; and if you do these things, you will keep a great fast, and one acceptable before God.

This sort of text, like others in the Fathers, the services and prayerbooks, smite the very heart. If we have a criterion for inspiration, such as profitable for doctrine etc., then it is difficult for me to suppose that the inspiration in these lines by Hermas is inferior to anything else that is now dubbed as inspired, to wit, the OT and the NT.

In conclusion, I suppose that Scripture is lumpy, since I conceive that it is possible for Paul to err, for profitable instruction to masquerade as history (Genesis, e.g.) and so forth. However, this lumpiness is not a reason for consternation, since we conceive of the Bible as integral to worship and not as the basis of our Faith. We worshipped God before the Bible was compiled and approved and we would worship God without it being compiled and approved. When I read Mother Gavrilia, I believe that she was truly inspired by God, yet that does not make her words canonical. What matters is that the Holy Spirit always comforts us and instructs us, whether through the Bible, the Fathers, the Liturgies, the prayerbooks etc. The canonization of the Scriptures is in a sense a convenience for the faithful.DanM

"Neither God nor Christ told any Bible author what to say and what not to say."

Have you ever read the Holy Scriptures?

David was a murderer in his heart and that is what made his actions murderous and him guilty of murder in his heart. The intentions of his actions were revealed as murderous, but the actions themselves were performed in accordance with the Law of Kings and the nobility of Uriah the Hittite.

Furthermore, Bathsheba's husband being dead was free to marry a point which the Apostle Paul says concerning the Laws governing marriage. David showed the depth of his repentance by bringing Her into the Covenant Promise that his seed would sit on his throne.

Often readers of the Scriptures reverse the order of the City of God and the City of Man and the result are foolish questions such as, "So if God didn't have a problem with homosexuals and adulterers being stoned back then, does He have a problem with it now?"

The problem lies not in God or His commandments, but in us and our obedience. The primary reason capital punishment was applied was to 'cut off the propagation of justification for sin from within the Covenant Community." The Apostle Paul spiritually applies the Capital Punishment laws into the Church to the case of the man and his sexual deviancy with his own Mother-in-law."

Which is the greater judgement...to kill the body...or to cast body and soul into Hell? This latter is the capital punishment which the Apostle Paul instructed the Church at Corinth to apply. Some might doubt this thinking hell to only be a future for after death of the body, but hell is everywhere present around us and only able to be escaped when you are translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light which is the Orthodox Church.

To be cut off from Holy Communion is more deadly than any injection needle and is really the greatest form of Capital Punishment that can be applied to the Living. Indeed, an injection needle can only kill the body, but to be cut off from Holy Communion results in both the death of the body and the soul. For the mysteries we receive are True Life which transforms both body and soul into the image of Jesus Christ.

Now to answer "So if God didn't have a problem with homosexuals and adulterers being stoned back then, does He have a problem with it now?"

The Church is not in the business of the King and seeks not after the death of any sinner, for God also does not desire the death of any sinner...and the death of which the Apostle Paul speaks is eternal death. Yet, when the wicked are cut off from corrupting the members of the Church and the nations (in that order), the Church still rejoices (read the services if this is doubtful) even if as in the case of one corrupter who fell into his own bowel excrement (see Arius among others).

Now then, does God hate Homesexuality? Who can doubt it? The act of Homesexuality confuses the purpose for which God made them Male and Female, i.e., to be fruitful and multiply the earth. Furthermore, it was God who said of Man, "It is not good for him to be alone." Modernism tauts homesexuality as some kind of predestined psychological self-fulfillment. It and those who practice it are to be cut off from the Church as it has been clearly stated through the Apostle Paul that those who practice such things will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

God did not order the Israelites to go out into the nations and kill all the Homesexuals in the world and neither does he order the Church. The Church judges the Church and by that judgment all in the world are also judged (i.e., judgement begins in the household of God and if the righteous are barely saved, how will the wicked be saved.). BUT...those who practice these things are already judged according to the apostle and bear that judgment in their own flesh and because of these practices they cannot enter and partake of the only life giving bread in the world. Therein the Church practices true Capital Punishment which has eternal consequences for both body and soul.

Furthermore, the Church holds open the door of repentance in hope that some might be brought to life through the preaching and obedience to the Gospel and thus escape the sentence of death which is written in our own flesh against us.

The reality is that Homosexuals are already dead in trespassess and sins and darkened by the blindness of their minds so that they cannot see the truth; which is possible only through obedience to the Gospel.

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

"Neither God nor Christ told any Bible author what to say and what not to say."

Have you ever read the Holy Scriptures?

I think the point is that our Scriptures were not dictated from above- they came from withing the Church (and please let's not get into the debate of whether the Chuch existed BC- the New Israel is the continuation of -and came out- of Israel.)

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I believe the Scriptures are factually true and confess so daily saying, "I believe....according to the Scriptures."

I believe all Scripture which has been given to us by the Church following the lead and example of the Apostles who themselves reasoned, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and unto us..." to be inspired by God and parts were no doubt dictated and as the case may have actually been, many of the sayings of our Lord were first recorded by an Apostle whose skill was recording and keeping accounts, i.e., the Apostle Matthew.

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

I believe the Scriptures are factually true and confess so daily saying, "I believe....according to the Scriptures."

Actually, the only place in the Creed where the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is used, it follows immediately after "and on the third day He rose again, ". One can conclude from this grammar, therefore, that the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is used only to qualify our belief in the Resurrection. Even then, Christians didn't believe in the Resurrection solely because of the Scriptures, for this was always the fundamental proclamation of the Church, even before St. Paul wrote the first book of the New Testament to the Galatians. Seeing how the Resurrection so undergirded the Church and her understanding of divine revelation, to include her very knowledge of the Scriptures, one could even say that the Nicene Fathers used the qualifying phrase "according to the Scriptures" to express how they saw the Resurrection as the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture.

The phrase "according to the Scriptures" while in its context is immediately applicable to the Resurrection of our Lord, but it does not exclude the whole of the Creed which is also wholly found withing the Scripture.

Should I believe in God who created the Heavens and the earth...according to the Scriptures? And what of the Virgin's conception, am I not also to believe in this mystery which is above man's intellect...according to the Scriptures? And what of the Holy Spirit who proceedeth from the Father and who spake by the Prophets...according to the Scriptures.

I cannot conclude as PetertheAleut that statement "according to the Scripture" must and can only be used concerning my Orthodox belief in the Resurrection.

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

PeterTheAleut wrote: "...therefore, that the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is used only to qualify our belief in the Resurrection." and followed up clarifying "to counter an interpretation of the Creed that is not really found in the text of the Creed."

The following is from the Catechism of St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow concerning the fifth article of the Creed.

217. What is there for us to remark on the next words of the Creed: and rose again the third day, according to the Scripture?

These words were put into the Creed from the following passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scripture; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scripture. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.

218. What force is there in these words: according to the Scripture?

By this is shown that Jesus Christ died and rose again, precisely as had been written of him prophetically in the books of the Old Testament. Further on St. PhiSt. Philaret instructs us saying:

244. Why is it said in the Creed that the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets?

. This is said against certain heretics, who taught that the books of the Old Testament were not written by the Holy Ghost

245. Does holy Scripture witness that the Holy Ghost really spake by the prophets?

The Apostle Peter writes: For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet. i. 21.

I believe the Scriptures are factually true and confess so daily saying, "I believe....according to the Scriptures."

Actually, the only place in the Creed where the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is used, it follows immediately after "and on the third day He rose again, ". One can conclude from this grammar, therefore, that the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is used only to qualify our belief in the Resurrection. Even then, Christians didn't believe in the Resurrection solely because of the Scriptures, for this was always the fundamental proclamation of the Church, even before St. Paul wrote the first book of the New Testament to the Galatians. Seeing how the Resurrection so undergirded the Church and her understanding of divine revelation, to include her very knowledge of the Scriptures, one could even say that the Nicene Fathers used the qualifying phrase "according to the Scriptures" to express how they saw the Resurrection as the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture.

While I certainly stand to be corrected, I know that I have read somewhere (wish I knew where!) that the phrase in the Creed "according to the Scriptures" is clearly taken from 1 Corinthians 15:4 "and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (NKJV) meaning that the Resurrection took place according to the prophecies and teachings of the Scriptures, which would have meant what we know as the Old Testament.

I certainly agree with PeterTheAleut that our faith is securely grounded.

"According to the Scriptures" applies to everything Orthodox, even if our puny minds cannot comprehend how or where. It is the Holy Spirit who abides in the Church making it the foundation of truth and righteousness in the earth. But, the Holy Spirit gave us a Canon which applies to every area of life to the end that we might walk humbly, do justice, show mercy even as He has shown to us.

I quoted the passage from the Symbol of our Faith to assure that what the Church believes exactly as the Scriptures were intended.

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.